I'm sure that's a case that comes up a lot. Important to think about.
See, that's why the discussion is perfectly suited to a thread in TypologyCentral.
Originally Posted by Jennifer
What are you talking about?
A cojoined twin kills someone. The victim was not cojoined.
At this point, the law has to decide how to punish someone for a crime who is unfortunately attached to ANOTHER person, so the innocent twin will end up sharing a potential punishment with the guilty one.
That is what we are talking about.
The law can't just say, "Oh, someone got killed/raped/abused, but we'll let it go."
Exactly; well summed.
Originally Posted by Pseudo
Wouldn't the xo joined twin at least have to be an accessory? They would have been somewhat able to prevent the crime by resisting.
Likely, but not necessarily. The other brother could be tricked and/or distracted.
They twin not being able to kill them because of the joins organs?
My criminal law teacher once mentioned a hypothesis on which a conjoined twin murders a person (against the other conjoined twin's will).
Assuming they both share vital organs, and that the death of one leads to an inevitable death of the other, what should happen, in your opinion?
The implied difficulty here is that murder necessitates death as punishment. The whole problem seems to stem from thinking inside a tiny box. Is there no other solution?